Home Forums > Science > Biology & Genetics >
Chemical evolution:
Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by paddoboy, Aug 7, 2020.
Traverse Registered Member
Behe & Dembski are both frauds, and are lucky not to have had their degrees stripped from them for having brought disrepute to their schools.
Traverse, Jan 22, 2021
Write4U Valued Senior Member
Q-reeus said: ↑
Libelous rant now not merely potentially so - #877. Foolish it is to condemn without giving the accused a fair hearing.
Behe had a fair hearing in the Kitzmiller trial and lost the case, because he failed to present a compelling case for ID as science.
Write4U, Jan 22, 2021
Traverse likes this.
Traverse said: ↑
But I'm now very curious about your favourite subject, and would be grateful to hear it here.
Let me refer you to the Pseudoscience subforum OP title ;
"Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules"?
please go there for a pretty comprehensive library with reference links . It started in reference to consciousness, but proved to be infinitely more important to the existence and homeostasis of living organisms.
Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member
Write4U said: ↑
And you know for a fact the judge making that finding was free of any ideological/political bias?
We've gone over that before. You think one judge's verdict is somehow a final one. A link to Behe's 'A Mousetrap for Darwin' has been posted twice already.
You can lead a horse to water but....
The relevant section dealing with and tearing apart item-by-item the contrived logic used to make a negative ruling is 108. WHETHER INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS SCIENCE, beginning p482.
I'm tempted to reproduce a fair chunk of it here but that is probably prohibited by copyright. Either you are prepared to check for yourself what the other side has to say on the matter, or you prefer to remain ignorant of it.
Q-reeus, Jan 22, 2021
WHETHER INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS SCIENCE
OK, I'll use one of James' arguments.
Present a theory of Intelligent Design. If you cannot present a theory then all you have is a hypothesis and in this case the hypothesis has not a shred of evidence that would lead to the probability of "Life via Intelligent Design", and moreover, as implemented by an Intelligent Designer, a hypothesis which itself has no supporting theory or shred of evidence.
How far back do you want to go with unsupported hypotheticals for which there exist no supporting evidence.
"Irreducible Complexity", the sole argument used by Behe was debunked by a cadre of scientific witnesses in that court room. It was on that basis the judge made his decision to find against Behe et al. No prejudice involved.
Asserts you. The judge may have tried his best to be impartial, but Behe convincingly demonstrates each point made was logically flawed. But since those points were made in conclusion, there was no way then to have them then challenged. Now they are, in easily readable form. Don't presume to know in advance that Behe is wrong. PS I have slightly edited last post - beginning (Kindle version default PC settings at least) page number changed from 485 to 482.
Behe convincingly demonstrates each point made was logically flawed. But since those points were made in conclusion, there was no way then to have them then challenged.
See, now you have to resort to casting doubt on the impartiality of the judge as well as the competence of the scientists, the "expert witnesses".
In any case, the above is not a logical argument. What you are trying to say is that the opposing scientists convincingly demonstrated each point made by Behe was logically flawed..... etc, etc.
The scientific evidence was overwhelming in the favor of the scientists. That was no surprise, it was their area of expertise .
Of Mousetraps and Men: Behe on Biochemistry
In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, biochemist Michael Behe claims that biochemical systems exhibit a special kind of complexity - irreducible complexity - that cannot possibly have evolved and must have resulted from intelligent design. Like other intelligent-design creationists, Behe is vague about both the identity and methods of his intelligent designer, though he does distinguish between the hypothesis of natural design (by space aliens, perhaps) and that of supernatural design (1996, 248-9).
As Behe is aware, postulating intelligent design by space aliens only postpones a confrontation with the problem of the origins of complexity. After all, who designed the designers? Thus the unwary reader is pointed in the direction of a supernatural, undesigned designer. But if you were puzzled by biochemical complexity in the first place, this latter hypothesis, involving as it does an unknown supernatural being that employs unknown materials and methods, can hardly result in a net reduction of mystification.
Luckily we do not have to settle this matter. It turns out that Behe's intelligent design hypothesis is the result of his failure to consider relevant natural processes when trying to account for the origins of biochemical complexity.
This problem arises in turn because Behe thinks about biochemical complexity with the aid of a misleading mechanical analogy - the well-designed mousetrap. The mechanical mousetrap is to Michael Behe what the mechanical watch was to William Paley. And it goes without saying that machines have designers.
https://ncse.ngo/mousetraps-and-men-behe-biochemistry
Well duhhhhhh.....
In nature there is NO irreducible complexity. In the end all matter (including chemicals) consists of three families of fundamental electromagnetic quanta which self-assemble and eventually become expressed as atoms in the Table of Elements.
Quantum field theory
In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity and quantum mechanics,[1]:xi but not general relativity's description of gravity. QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles.
QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles. Interactions between particles are described by interaction terms in the Lagrangian involving their corresponding quantum fields. Each interaction can be visually represented by Feynman diagrams according to perturbation theory in quantum mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
Not the competence of the opposing specialists but their outlook being impaired by ideological commitment ('there cannot be any other way').
???? No I was arguing the exact opposite!
See above. Or better yet, get a hold of a copy of A Mousetrap for Darwin, and learn how the game is actually played.
The author's argument that mousetrap designs have themselves 'evolved' via 'cultural evolution' is clever but specious. The real problem is how to get any given design of a functioning mousetrap via random processes in the first place. Something Behe neatly explains here: https://idthefuture.com/1391/
Their further argument that redundant complexity explains away the need for ID fails because it starts from a base of an already complex entity, not from scratch.
That concept has no power to explain the origin of say an integral functional semi-permeable cell membrane that can divide and regrow via complex instructions and material transport directed from the internal cell machinery. Among many other examples.
Then you were wrong. Behe's "irreducible complexity of the flagella" was debunked and it was demonstrated that the flagella evolved from prior functional mechanisms and gradually gained in complexity from a basic secretory gland and the motor mechanism from a self-assembled microtubule system consisting of just two chemical tubulins, a dimer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
I can't go any further in this thread, lest I incur the wrath of mods and accrue penalty points. Incredible but true!
Thanks, I just found it. MTs are certainly interesting features of cells.
Behe's colleagues at Lehigh are deeply ashamed of him, but he has tenure so they're stuck with him (he'd certainly never get hired anywhere else). Had the University known about his nuttiness during his tenure-tracking, they would certainly never have given him tenure, so he duped them.
Dembski (mathematician) ended up leaving the ID/creationism field.
Write4U likes this.
I'm sorry that the thread has no defined order . It's just that the more I learned about this ridiculously simple organelle and its two even simpler relatives, the more its astounding versatility and utility becomes apparent. They seem to be present in EVERYTHING, even the bacteria in our human microbiome.
I like biological things that are simple, functional, & ubiquitous, so it sounds like MTs could qualify to be of significance to the CE story.
The origin of the genetic code is still a massive problem (presumably occurring a ways 'downstream' of the nexus between non-living matter and Life), for which some kind of intimate interaction between early genetic oligomers and amino acids / oligopeptides would almost certainly have to be entertained/invoked. I think that there's still a $10M prize up for grabs for whoever can figure out the origin of the genetic code.
Nowhere in that article is a plausible step-by-step transformation process, driven by Darwinian selective advantage at every step, offered. Instead impressive technical terms are put together in a way to hide the fact all that is offered is hand-wavy arguments on the basis of optimistic assumptions. In one paragraph it's first asserted bacterium flagella evolved from a type III secretory system, only to sneak in at the end that idea has been overturned given flagella came before that secretory system. So they postulate a more primitive secretory system was the progenitor of flagella. Which again fails to address the step-by-step Darwinian 'advantage' problem. Devil in the details as ever.
The origin of the genetic code is still a massive problem (presumably occurring a ways 'downstream' of the nexus between non-living matter and Life)
Yes, I'm sure the process of adding polymer codes would take millions of years and untold natural trials.
But what encourages me in speculation is the fact that DNA only consists of relatively very few parts (in enormous numbers), which should facilitate the gradual addition of polymers to the complete structure.
The fact that we were able to decode the structure itself speaks for a relatively simple pattern.
DNA- Structure, Properties, Types and Functions
August 28, 2018 by Sagar Aryal
Biology Educational Videos
DNA stands for Deoxyribonucleic Acid which is a molecule that contains the instructions an organism needs to develop, live and reproduce.
These instructions are found inside every cell and are passed down from parents to their children.
It is a nucleic acid and is one of the four major types of macromolecules that are known to be essential for all forms of life.
DNA is found in the nucleus, with a small amount of DNA also present in mitochondria in the eukaryotes.
Figure: Watson and Crick proposed the double helix model for DNA. (a) The sugar-phosphate backbones are on the outside of the double helix and purines and pyrimidines form the "rungs" of the DNA helix ladder. (b) The two DNA strands are antiparallel to each other. (c) The direction of each strand is identified by numbering the carbons (1 through 5) in each sugar molecule. The 5ʹ end is the one where carbon #5 is not bound to another nucleotide; the 3ʹ end is the one where carbon #3 is not bound to another nucleotide. Source: Lumen Learning.
https://microbenotes.com/dna-structure-properties-types-and-functions/
It seems that all reductionist examinations always end up with very simple fundamental structures and patterns which lend themselves to evolutionary chronologies into forming more complex patterns.
Mind, I am no expert, so forgive any naivete in trying to understand the rudiments......
An odious political/ideological correctness punishing anyone in academia deviating from the Official Position is no argument for or against the correctness or otherwise of dissidents. Our 'freedom loving' West is increasingly morphing into a USSR style system of rigid ideological conformity.
Yes, all functional systems had progenitor parents, that is the definition of evolution from simple to complex patterns.
Type III secretory system
Type three secretion system (often written Type III secretion system and abbreviated TTSS or T3SS, also called Injectisome) is a protein appendage found in several Gram-negative bacteria.
In pathogenic bacteria, the needle-like structure is used as a sensory probe to detect the presence of eukaryotic organisms and secrete proteins that help the bacteria infect them. The secreted effector proteins are secreted directly from the bacterial cell into the eukaryotic (host) cell, where they exert a number of effects that help the pathogen to survive and to escape an immune response.
A transmission electron-microscope image of isolated T3SS needle complexes from Salmonella typhimurium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_three_secretion_system
Compared to this;
Composite electron micrograph of the flagellum basal body and hook, produced by rotational averaging (Francis et al., 1994). The motor proteins and export apparatus
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
Well that statement was not addressing you but Traverse, who seems a learned fellow.
Well I for one appreciate your positive enthusiasm in this thread.
My particular focus is right back at the nexus between non-living matter on the prebiotic early Earth, and the first recognisable stages of incipient abiogenesis.